So you don't believe that the Holy Spirit could give a person the right answer in this thread?
That would be God speaking.
Therefore, God can and I believe does post on this forum.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
[__ Science __ ] The Flood, what happened?
- Thread starter reddogs
- Start date
That would be God speaking.
Therefore, God can and I believe does post on this forum.
No. You base reality on science. You interpret the Bible through science. Not me. As I said, when your reality, your science, conflicts with the Bible, then it conflicts with God. And God trumps science.
The creation testifies that God is. The creation doesn't reveal knowledge about God or the universe. Only the Bible does that as it is the revelation from God. Your science struggles to learn about the creation. Your science can't know God.
Your science can't interpret the Word of God.
Quantrill
Nope. If it is, then (for example) "erets Israel" means "the world Israel."
In Genesis 1, God is speaking of land, not the world.
Which is why He uses the Hebrew word for land, instead of the word for world.
As with other verses in this chapter, Genesis uses the term 'erets for "earth," rather than other terms such as tebel. The Hebrew word 'erets is often used in a regional or symbolic sense, while tebel is a specific reference to the entire planet. This is part of the ongoing debate over whether or not the flood is a planetary event, or something confined to the regions populated by men. In any case, the waters accomplish their intended task: wiping out sinful mankind, and sparing only Noah and his family.
What does Genesis 7:17 mean?
Then the flood came upon the earth for forty days, and the water increased and lifted up the ark, so that it rose above the earth. - What is the meaning of Genesis 7:17?www.bibleref.com
Nope. In (Gen. 1:1) God is speaking of the earth. As in contrast with the heavens. Not land as in contrast with water. What a reach you make. What a testimony of unbelief.
"M. M. Kalisch, a leading Hebrew scholar of the nineteenth century, strongly opposed those who tried to tone down the universal terms of the Genesis Flood account." He said, "They have thereby violated all the rules of a sound philology. They have disregarded the spirit of the language, and disregarded the dictates of common sense. It is impossible to read the narrative of our chapter [Genesis 7] without being irresistibly impressed that the whole earth was destined for destruction. This is so evident throughout the whole of the description that it is unnecessary to adduce single instances...In our cast the universality does not lie in the words merely, but in the tenor of the whole narrative." (The Genesis Flood, John C. Whitcomb And Henry M. Morris, P&R publishing, 1961, p. 57)
Quantrill
Last edited:
Yes you did. See post #(99).
And, you are wrong in what you said. You make science the interpreter of the Bible. If science disagrees with the Bible, then science is wrong. You are wrong...because you trust science, not God as revealed in the Bible.
I didn't make up anything. You said something. Got caught. Then changed your tune.
Really? So what are my terms concerning believing the Bible? Your terms are science. You believe the Bible if science supports it. Now tell me my terms in believing the Bible.
How much faith do I have? What is my way? What difficulties are you talking about?
Quantrill
Barbarian
Member
No, you just made that up. I never said that.
Post #99 isn't even my post. I never said what you claim I did. Nor did the person making that post say what you claim. You just made up something I never said. You got caught. Learn from it.
I didn't say that, either. You made that up, too.
If nature appears to conflict with your interpretation of the Bible, then you have one or both of them wrong.
You are wrong...because you trust mans interpretation of the Bible, not God as revealed in the Bible.
Only for things that apply to nature. Scripture tells us about God and man and our relationship.
You believe the Bible if it fits your new doctrines.
If you were willing to accept it on God's terms, this would trouble you no more.
Last edited:
Barbarian
Member
I'm assuming you are a Christian. Are you?
Barbarian
Member
Could. But often people think it's God talking to them when it's someone else.
Do you have any specific posts in mind?
kiwimacahau
Member
Post #99 is mine but I'm ignoring Quantrill as there is only so much dreck I can take in a day. What I said was that the Bible does not trump Science.
No, my memory isn't that good.
But if you don't believe it's possible without me proving it to you, well then, what's the sense?
Barbarian
Member
Could. But often people think it's God talking to them when it's someone else.
Do you have any specific posts in mind?
That's what "could" means. But I'd like to see where God was posting here, if you every find it.
Do you have any specific posts in mind?
That's what "could" means. But I'd like to see where God was posting here, if you every find it.
Barbarian
Member
Yeah. On reflecting what he's done, I don't think he was being intentionally dishonest. I think he's just not very careful, forgets what he read, and fills in with imagination.
Yes, I made a mistake in attributing post #(99) to you. Sorry. Your statement that human interpretation of the Bible does not trump science is equally false. You make science the interpreter of the Bible. You don't have to say it. It is what you do.
If science conflicts with what the Bible says, then science is wrong. You like to use the word 'nature' as to not put science on the witness stand. But, when you use the word nature you are believing what science says about nature. And as we both know, science doesn't know it all. God does. So, when your science, (nature), conflicts with the Bible, your science (nature) is wrong.
No, I trust the Word of God. The Bible. Is the Bible the Word of God?
You elevate science over the Bible when you believe what science says about nature contrary to what God says in the Bible.
Granted, Scripture is not a science book. Nor is it a history book. It is a Book of Redemption. But, when it addresses the universe, nature, and history, it does so without error. Thus when it says the flood of Noah was over every high mountain, then it was over every high mountain. When it says the flood was over the whole earth, then it was over the whole earth.
I believe the Bible on God's terms. It is the Word of God. Isn't it?
Who says I'm troubled? I'm not troubled.
Quantrill
Of course I'm Christian. See? I'm not afraid of answering your question. So answer mine. Is the Bible the Word of God?
Quantrill
I got the post wrong. I didn't get you wrong. And don't ignore post #(124).
Quantrill
Last edited:
I doubt God will speak to you in the flesh.
Truthfrees
Member
God can create everything like planets and suns but He has to use evolution to create life? - it's reasoning like this that causes evolution to lose the common sense/science/scripture debates
iow evolutionists lose on every count when debating with God's truth
and they reason in circles - when you catch them in one falsehood they move on to the next evolutionist falsehood and the start all over at the beginning doing the same circle dance
you make really god points - a pleasure to read your posts
Barbarian
Member
Would be pretty remarkable, no?
Barbarian
Member
[/QUOTE]
He uses nature to create most everything in this universe. Planets and suns, for example. And life. He could have done it otherwise, but He's not obligated to do it any particular way.
Creationists often reason in circles - when you catch them in one falsehood they move on to the next creationist falsehood and the start all over at the beginning doing the same circle dance
God isn't obligated to do it the way any of us would like Him to do it. He says that the earth brought forth living things; who are any of us to complain that He did it naturally?